Brianna Rosgen1,2,3, Karla Krewulak1,2,3,4, Danielle Demiantschuk1, E Wesley Ely5,6, Judy E Davidson7, Henry T Stelfox1,2,4, Kirsten M Fiest1,2,3,4. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, Center for Health Services Research, Tennessee Valley Department of Veterans Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee. 6. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Department of Veterans Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee. 7. Department of Education, Development & Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To summarize the validity of caregiver-centered delirium detection tools in hospitalized adults and assess associated patient and caregiver outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from inception to May 15, 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults. INTERVENTION: Caregiver-centered delirium detection tools. MEASUREMENTS: We drafted a protocol from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two reviewers independently completed abstract and full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment. We summarized findings using descriptive statistics including mean, median, standard deviation, range, frequencies (percentages), and Cohen's kappa. Studies that reported on the validity of caregiver-centered delirium detection tools or associated patient and caregiver outcomes and were cohort or cross-sectional in design were included. RESULTS: We reviewed 6,056 titles and abstracts, included 6 articles, and identified 6 caregiver-centered tools. All tools were designed to be administered in several minutes or less and had 11 items or fewer. Three tools were caregiver administered (completed independently by caregivers): Family Confusion Assessment Method (FAM-CAM), Informant Assessment of Geriatric Delirium (I-AGeD), and Sour Seven. Three tools were caregiver informed (administered by a healthcare professional using caregiver input): Single Question in Delirium (SQiD), Single Screening Question Delirium (SSQ-Delirium), and Stressful Caregiving Response to Experiences of Dying. Caregiver-administered tools had better psychometric properties (FAM-CAM sensitivity 75%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=35-95%, specificity 91%, 95% CI=74-97%; Sour Seven positive predictive value 89.5%, negative predictive value 90%) than caregiver-informed tools (SQiD: sensitivity 80%, 95% CI=28.4-99.5%; specificity 71%, 95% CI=41.9-91.6%; SSQ-Delirium sensitivity 79.6%, specificity 56.1%). CONCLUSION: Delirium detection is essential for appropriate delirium management. Caregiver-centered delirium detection tools show promise in improving delirium detection and associated patient and caregiver outcomes. Comparative studies using larger sample sizes and multiple centers are required to determine validity and reliability characteristics.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize the validity of caregiver-centered delirium detection tools in hospitalized adults and assess associated patient and caregiver outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from inception to May 15, 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults. INTERVENTION: Caregiver-centered delirium detection tools. MEASUREMENTS: We drafted a protocol from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two reviewers independently completed abstract and full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment. We summarized findings using descriptive statistics including mean, median, standard deviation, range, frequencies (percentages), and Cohen's kappa. Studies that reported on the validity of caregiver-centered delirium detection tools or associated patient and caregiver outcomes and were cohort or cross-sectional in design were included. RESULTS: We reviewed 6,056 titles and abstracts, included 6 articles, and identified 6 caregiver-centered tools. All tools were designed to be administered in several minutes or less and had 11 items or fewer. Three tools were caregiver administered (completed independently by caregivers): Family Confusion Assessment Method (FAM-CAM), Informant Assessment of Geriatric Delirium (I-AGeD), and Sour Seven. Three tools were caregiver informed (administered by a healthcare professional using caregiver input): Single Question in Delirium (SQiD), Single Screening Question Delirium (SSQ-Delirium), and Stressful Caregiving Response to Experiences of Dying. Caregiver-administered tools had better psychometric properties (FAM-CAM sensitivity 75%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=35-95%, specificity 91%, 95% CI=74-97%; Sour Seven positive predictive value 89.5%, negative predictive value 90%) than caregiver-informed tools (SQiD: sensitivity 80%, 95% CI=28.4-99.5%; specificity 71%, 95% CI=41.9-91.6%; SSQ-Delirium sensitivity 79.6%, specificity 56.1%). CONCLUSION:Delirium detection is essential for appropriate delirium management. Caregiver-centered delirium detection tools show promise in improving delirium detection and associated patient and caregiver outcomes. Comparative studies using larger sample sizes and multiple centers are required to determine validity and reliability characteristics.
Authors: Erica K Husser; Donna M Fick; Marie Boltz; Priyanka Shrestha; Jonathan Siuta; Shannon Malloy; Abigail Overstreet; Douglas L Leslie; Long Ngo; Yoojin Jung; Sharon K Inouye; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kirsten M Fiest; Karla D Krewulak; Bonnie G Sept; Krista L Spence; Judy E Davidson; E Wesley Ely; Andrea Soo; Henry T Stelfox Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Phillip E Vlisides; Jacqueline W Ragheb; Aleda Leis; Amanda Schoettinger; Kim Hickey; Amy McKinney; Joseph Brooks; Mackenzie Zierau; Alexandra Norcott; Shirley Yang; Michael S Avidan; Lillian Min Journal: F1000Res Date: 2019-09-24